ArticlePolymers2024
Suitability of Test Procedures for Determining the Compatibility of Seal Materials with Ionic Hydraulic Fluids.
Article in Polymers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The compatibility of seal materials with the working fluid is crucial for the flawless, energy-saving, environmentally sustainable, and safe operation of any technical system. This is especially true for hydraulic systems operating under high operating pressure. The problem of materials compatibility comes into play when either a new type of seal material or a new type of fluid comes into use. The paper discusses the research findings regarding material compatibility testing of new high-tech ionic hydraulic fluids with commonly used seal materials. Due to the completely different chemical composition of these new fluids compared to the classical mineral-based oil, for these fluids, there are no standardized testing procedures. In these cases, we can only lean on the Standards that apply to classical fluids, which can lead to incorrect results. In the forefront of the paper is the discrepancy between the results obtained by the standardized test, and the test under real operating conditions. FKM, an excellent material for seals, proved to be the most suitable in the case of using ionic hydraulic fluid, according to a standardized test. However, it failed in the comparison test under real operating conditions, as the cylinder leaked. NBR seals proved to be a better solution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.